For that matter, is there any place in a city that firing at a threat would not involve firing "in the direction of" a building? Could the original intent be to cover shooting at a building, not shooting at a threat with a building behind it.Teamless wrote:Thinking aboutspeedsix wrote:does he fit this???, then yes, he does.speedsix wrote:if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:(1) one or more individuals; or(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
However, when I think about the size of a full grown German Sheppard or Rottie, I would think he was shooting at a down angle (of course, I am assuming he is a man of 5'7" or taller) and if he is shooting at a down angle, is he really shooting in the direction of?
Really, I could go into an field of 2 miles across, and shoot a shotgun in a direction towards a house, when the rounds have no possible way of getting there, and I am still shooting in that direction as well. So is there EVER any way to shoot around that law?
Search found 1 match
Return to “Austin: man charged shooting dog in his own backyard”
- Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:43 am
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Austin: man charged shooting dog in his own backyard
- Replies: 7
- Views: 703